CHETTIAR V. HOLDER

9th Circuit

Chettiar v. Holder (9th Circuit, January 17, 2012)
THOMAS, Clifton, Carr

Summary: Venkatraman Chettiar, a native and citizen of India, was admitted to the US as a conditional permanent resident based on his marriage to an American citizen. He applied with his wife to remove the conditions on his residence. The Service Center that received his petition concluded that he had not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate he was in a legitimate marital relationship. A CIS officer interviewed Chettiar and his wife and concluded the same. CIS requested an additional interview to further investigate the matter. Chettiar requested a change in venue for the interview. CIS rejected his request and when Chettiar failed to appear, CIS concluded the marriage was fraudulent and denied his petition to remove the conditions on his residency. Chettiar challenged the decision on the grounds that CIS violated statutory law when it failed to make its determination within 90 days of his interview and CIS wrongfully refused his request to relocate. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(A).

The IJ denied Chettiar’s motions to terminate the proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and elaborated that because Chettiar’s first interview with CIS was not intended to be his final interview, the 90 days did not start running after the first scheduled interview. It also declared that CIS did not abuse its discretion when it refused to relocate the interview because Chettiar’s spouse resided near the location of the interview and Chettiar had been wiling and able to attend the first interview despite his residence in another state.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the same grounds as the BIA, it further added that even if CIS had missed its 90 day deadline, Chettiar could not claim relief because the deadlines were flexible and making them permanent would go against the central purpose of the Immigration Marriage Fraid Amendments (IMFA).

Read the opinion here.